PRESENT
Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman
Council President Palmer Gillis
Council Vice President Robert Cannon
Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers
Councilman Frank Himelright
Councilman James Ireton
The Mayor and Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. The Lord's Prayer was repeated and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Council President Gillis called the meeting to order.
Mr. Cannon motioned and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve the minutes of June 8, 1998 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Ms. Siggers motioned to amend page three, second paragraph, to include that both Mr. Gillis and Ms. Siggers stressed that the Live Near Your Work proposal was requested just as the Neighbors Helping Neighbors proposal was requested with no supporting information. The motion died for lack of a second. All voted in favor of approving the June 8, 1998 minutes as presented with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.
Executive Officer John Pick briefed Council on Ordinance No. 1689 - an ordinance to transfer $11,000 to enable Building, Housing & Zoning to continue two operating programs for the remainder of this fiscal year. One thousand dollars will be used for one additional demolition project and the remaining $10,000 will be used to continue the clean and lien program.
Mr. Himelright motioned and Mr. Ireton seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1689 to bring it on the floor for discussion. While Ms. Siggers was in support of demolition, she was also in support of homeowners having the opportunity to make the necessary improvements to their property. She referred to a court case in which the Judge gave an extension for the property owner to make the necessary repairs, but BHZ acted contrary to the judgement and demolished the property. BHZ Director Bill Holland reported that the court gave the homeowner one year to make the repairs. The repairs were not made so the house was demolished after the one year extension.
With no further discussion, Ordinance No. 1689 for second reading passed unanimously.
Mr. Himelright motioned and Ms. Siggers seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1690 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Planning & Zoning Planner Gloria Smith introduced Ordinance No. 1690 as an Ordinance amending Sections 17.28.030, 17.36.030 and 17.76.020B of the Salisbury Municipal Code to allow day care facilities for the elderly and handicapped as permitted uses by special exception in the Light Business and Institutional, General Commercial and Light Industrial Districts.
The Salisbury Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed Shore Up's request on May 21, 1998 to amend the Light Industrial District text to permit an adult day care center as a use permitted by special exception. They propose to develop a site on Northwood Drive and consolidate the two adult day care centers they currently operate at one location. During this public hearing, the Wicomico Teen Adult Center also asked that the application be expanded to include adult day care centers by special exception in the Light Business and Institutional and General Commercial Districts.
Currently, day care centers and nursery schools for children are permitted by special exception in the Light Industrial District. A school of general instruction is permitted in a Light Business and Institutional District. In the General Commercial District, a school of special instruction is a permitted use and day care services for employees or patrons is permitted as an accessory to any of the permitted uses. The Planning Commission found that the primary difference between these activities and the adult day care centers was the age of the clients. During their research, they found that adult day care centers were already permitted uses in the Neighborhood Business, Office and Service Residential and the R-5, R-8 and R-10 Residential Districts.
The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of the text amendments to Sections 17.28.030, 17.36.030 and 17.76.020B.
After further discussion, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1690 for first reading.
Mr. Ireton motioned and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Resolution No. 605 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor Robert Eaton introduced the Canal Park Drive-Ruark Property Annexation (area bounded at the end of Canal Park Drive, east of Canal Woods and on the west side of S. Division Street) and highlighted the contents of the Resolution. A public hearing on the annexation will be held on August 10, 1998. If the Resolution passes on August 10, 1998, it will become effective upon the expiration of 45 days, subject to the right of referendum.
Public Works Director Wil Elliott reviewed the conditions of annexation. Special conditions include: 1) comprehensive development plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission, access to the site by construction vehicles limited to an entrance off of S. Division Street; 2) first section of the development adjacent to Canal Woods property shall be limited to 60 units; 3) extension of Canal Park Drive will terminate in a permanent cul-de-sac located in the first section of the development with the remainder of the annexed area served by a roadway or roadways connected to S. Division Street only and will not be a through street to Canal Park Drive; 4) a physical and legal barrier will be created acceptable to the City separating the first section of the development from the balance of the annexed area subject to a controlled access for emergency services vehicles; and 5) access will be provided for emergency services vehicles established in such a way as to permit only the emergency vehicles to travel to or from the terminus of the extension of Canal Park Drive to the roadway leading to S. Division Street.
Mr. Himelright questioned the total number of units for the project as indicated in Mr. Ruark's February 26, 1998 letter. Mr. Ruark clarified that the total number was 300 units. Mr. Cannon thought this was a good compromise even though all parties did not agree to it. It allows for the recognition and preservation of the rights of property owners on both sides.
Mr. Jack Elliott questioned the legality of the proposal and why the current Planning and Zoning Director wasn't involved. In his opinion, it had bypassed Planning and Zoning. Mr. Gillis reported that it will go to Planning and Zoning in the same sequence as it would have done the last time.
Mrs. Gloria Smith advised that according to Planning & Zoning Director Hughes' memo dated June 22, 1998, it was determined that the current application did not differ from the prior application with regards to size or location. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Planning Commission during its review of the prior request for annexation on this property during March 1997 remain valid. The County Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential development for this area. With the conditions included in the Resolution regarding overall density of the development, review of the Comprehensive Development Plan by the Planning Commission and access to the site by construction vehicles off of S. Division Street, this annexation process could go forward without additional review at this time by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Eaton reiterated that Planning and Zoning was not bypassed as was substantiated by Mr. Hughes' memo. Mr. Eaton clarified for Mr. Bill Simms that this Resolution and the previous Resolution for annexation are not the same. The size and location of the property are the same, but the conditions of annexation are different. The petition for referendum specifically referenced only the previous Resolution and cannot be used in this case. If the residents wish to petition this Resolution to referendum, they will have to begin the process all over again to secure proper signatures.
Mr. Gillis commented that the people who signed the previous petition thought Canal Park Drive was to be a through street, whereas in this case it is not. This is a compromised plan with the street closing at a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of the 60 units section. This is being done to protect the Canal Woods interests to close this issue once and for all so there is no "wiggle" room.
Mr. Chuck Whitmore opined that the previous annexation Resolution and Resolution No. 605 are the same and believed that the referendum was still valid. In addition, the previous Resolution contained detailed information on stormwater management. Since Resolution No. 605 doesn't contain this information, he believed the Resolution was incomplete and should be withdrawn. Mr. Gillis responded that the stormwater management plan is subject to the approval of the City of Salisbury's Public Works Department. This is a State requirement and the City is mandated to comply.
Mrs. Smith reported that at the time the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the annexation request in March 1997, there was a conceptual design presented. The Comprehensive Development Plan will be submitted to them for approval after the 45 day waiting period if the Resolution passes at the August 10, 1998 public hearing. The stormwater management plan will also be addressed after the waiting period.
Mr. Lewis McBriety did not believe this was a compromise, only a repetition of the previous request, and they were willing to go forward with another referendum if necessary.
Mr. Tom Ruark felt the through street concern of Canal Park Drive had been compromised. Although he believed he had the legal right to extend the street, he was agreeable to this compromise. In speaking with some of the Canal Woods residents, he felt there was widespread support for it.
Ms. Siggers expressed that she would like to see the property annexed, but would not like to see traffic increased in the Canal Woods community. Because there appeared to be some perplexities in what had been presented, Ms. Siggers voiced that she would be abstaining from voting on this issue. As she stated before when it came before Council, the letter appeared to indicate that things had been worked out between Mr. Ruark and the complex, when in fact it was not the case.
With no further discussion, all voted in favor of Resolution No. 605 with the exception of Ms. Siggers who abstained.
The following item was presented for approval by Purchasing Director Carol Turner, C.P.M., CPPB:
1. Sigma Refrigerated Sampler (601-4101-533.70-30: Unbudgeted Capital)
American Sigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,181.70
Mr. Himelright motioned and Ms. Siggers seconded to amend by allocating money to purchase two new samplers at a total cost of $4,363.40. Mrs. Turner clarified that it was her understanding one of the three samplers had already been repaired. The other two were in such bad condition that they could not be repaired and needed to be replaced. One has been replaced and now she was requesting to replace the second. After discussion or whether to repair or purchase new ones, Mr. Elliott suggested keeping the motion as made and if the funds are not spent, the money will remain and be surplus for next year.
Mrs. Turner stated she would amend her request to reflect that if the one has not been repaired, the money allocated will purchase two, otherwise the money carries over. She will take care of transferring the funds. The request, as amended, was approved unanimously.
Mayor Barrie Tilghman commented on the meeting with department heads concerning the new pay plan for employees and stated that she won't rest until she thinks there is a good deal in place for all in regards to Resolution No. 605, or for any other matter which comes before the City.
Mr. Lonnie Hilliard (representing Grizzly Pack Productions), and four other gentlemen commented on three police officers conduct at the Lake Street Block Party on Saturday, June 20, 1998. The officers had responded to loud music complaints.
Col. Guthrie thought there was a breakdown in communication. There was another event being held the same day at North Lake Park. Mayor Tilghman felt this was an administration matter and she would be happy to speak with them. Ms. Siggers was concerned with the officers conduct when she arrived at the event. She was very pleased with the way the gentlemen who were handling the event conducted themselves. Officer Tilghman did come back later and apologize to her as he realized it was another event which was causing the concern.
Mr. Himelright commented that there were other departments, other than the police department, who were not treating citizens well. Mr. Gillis related that Professor Bosserman has offered to make sessions on conflict resolution available to the Council or any other City employee.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
TIME & PLACE: July 2, 1998, Room 301 - City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Discuss a resignation proposal for a pending personnel matter (Dykes)
VOTE TO CLOSE: 4-0 (Councilwoman Siggers was absent)
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) - the appointment, employment,
assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation,
or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has
jurisdiction.
PRESENT: Council President Palmer Gillis, Council Vice President Robert Cannon,
Councilman Frank Himelright, Councilman Jim Ireton, City Clerk Brenda
Colegrove, Executive Officer John Pick
ABSENT: Mayor Tilghman and Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers
The Salisbury City Council convened at 3:12 p.m. in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building. Mr. Himelright motioned to go into Closed Executive Session to discuss a resignation proposal on a pending personnel matter (Dykes) as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1). Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous (Ms. Siggers was absent).
Council reviewed the proposal as drafted by the attorneys handling this issue. After discussion, Council had a few questions for Mayor Tilghman before giving an opinion on the proposal. Another meeting was scheduled for Monday, July 6th, with Mayor Tilghman to continue the discussion.
Mr. Himelright motioned to adjourn the closed session at 4:03 p.m. Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous.
TIME & PLACE: July 6, 1998, Room 301 - City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Discuss a resignation proposal for a pending personnel matter(Dykes) and to
consult with counsel to seek legal advice on the proposal
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) and 10-508(a)(7) - the
appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,
compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees,
employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction and to consult with counsel to
obtain legal advice on legal matter
PRESENT: Mayor Tilghman, Council President Palmer Gillis, Council Vice President Robert
Cannon, Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers, Councilman Frank Himelright,
Councilman Jim Ireton, City Clerk Brenda Colegrove, Executive Officer John Pick,
John Murray, Rad DeTarr (Attorney Paul Goetzke was consulted by phone)
The Mayor and Council convened at 3:13 p.m. in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building. Mr. Ireton motioned to go into Closed Executive Session to discuss the resignation proposal on a pending personnel matter (Dykes) and to seek legal advice from counsel on the proposal as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Sections 10-508(a)(1) and 10-508(a)(7). Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.
Mayor Tilghman addressed Council's questions from their July 2nd meeting regarding a portion of the proposal. After further discussion on the proposal including the legal aspects involved, Council concluded that this was an administrative decision for the Mayor rather than a legislative decision by Council.
At 5:47 p.m., Mr. Himelright motioned to adjourn the closed session. Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous.
TIME & PLACE: July 8, 1998, Room 301 - City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Discuss Police and Purchasing Departments pay requests and a Police Department
personnel issue
VOTE TO CLOSE: 4 - aye; 1 - abstain (Ms. Siggers)
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1)(ii) - the appointment,
employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal,
resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over
whom it has jurisdiction and any other personnel matter that affects one or more
specific individuals
PRESENT: Council President Palmer Gillis, Council Vice President Robert Cannon,
Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers, Councilman Frank Himelright, Councilman
Jim Ireton, City Clerk Brenda Colegrove, Executive Officer John Pick, Acting
Police Chief Ed Guthrie, Purchasing Director Carol Turner; Mayor Tilghman was
present for part of the discussion.
At 10:35 a.m. in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Himelright motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss Police and Purchasing Departments pay and a Police Department personnel issue as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Sections 10-508(a)(1)(ii). Mr. Cannon seconded. All voted in favor of closing the meeting with the exception of Ms. Siggers who abstained.
After discussion, the request for the Police Department employees was granted as presented; the Purchasing Department request was approved as modified by Council; and Council elected to go forward as scheduled on the personnel issue.
At 11:45 a.m., Mr. Cannon motioned to adjourn the closed session and reconvene into open session. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.